Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

US Presidential Election 2020

12357…306

Comments

  • #122
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,341 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    Bernie Sanders has highest approval rating of any politician in the US currently.

    Who I would love to see running but she is too young yet to qualify is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The fireworks between her and Trump would be unreal.


  • #123
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,482 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    rossie1977 wrote:
    Bernie Sanders has highest approval rating of any politician in the US currently.
    He is 77, do you really think he has a chanc? I don't.
    rossie1977 wrote:
    Who I would love to see running but she is too young yet to qualify is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The fireworks between her and Trump would be unreal.
    Another female is not going to happen anytime soon after Hilary lost out.


  • #124
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,138 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    I wouldn't be surprised if Cortez runs in the future. She's very young she has time but she looks promising. Let her learn the ropes in congress for a few years and I think she'd be a formidable candidate. I wouldn't rule out the dems putting up a woman and I don't think the fact that hillary failed would have a bearing on it. Hillary didn't lose because she was a women she lost because she was a poor candidate and people (especially right wingers) wanted to give 2 fingers to the establishment.


  • #125
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,341 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    eagle eye wrote: »
    He is 77, do you really think he has a chanc? I don't.

    Trump's 73 in a few months
    Another female is not going to happen anytime soon after Hilary lost out.

    That's irrelevant. AOC is about as far removed from Hillary politically and in terms of how she carries herself that one could get from same party.


  • #126
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,482 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    rossie1977 wrote:
    That's irrelevant. AOC is about as far removed from Hillary politically and in terms of how she carries herself that one could get from same party.
    It's not irrevelant. A woman got to go for President and lost, it'll be years before the Dems will let another one go for it.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    They don't really have to - There are way more Democrat voters than Republican , they just don't vote very often..

    The absolutely key thing for Democrats is getting their voters to actually vote , especially in the Swing states..
    Unfortunately the Dems for whatever reason have spent many elections trying to find a candidate who would be at least slightly acceptable to Republicans, and I'm not sure why. They've always seemed to try and focus on stealing republican voters than appealing to the (much larger) non-republican voters.

    Republicans always vote Republican, no matter who is on the ballot. That's one reason why Trump got in and why he still somehow has an approval rating that's not in single digits; blind loyalty.

    Dems run scared. Run a candidate who's not slightly conservative and the Reps get really dirty and slanderous in their campaign. And the Dems are afraid of this, and I don't know why.

    Democrat voters are more discerning and if the candidate doesn't appeal to them (like Clinton), then they're more likely to stay at home or vote for someone else.

    As you say, Dems need to get in more voters, they need a candidate with a wider appeal and not pick one based on whether the Reps can call him/her a communist or atheist.
    rossie1977 wrote: »
    Who I would love to see running but she is too young yet to qualify is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The fireworks between her and Trump would be unreal.
    Even if she was old enough to run, she's too green. She's an incredible young woman, but too inexperienced against the might of an electoral machine.

    If she sticks with it for ten or fifteen years, grows her callouses and just shrugs it off when the Republicans dig up some nude photos from a boyfriend when she was a teenager, then she'll be a great candidate.


  • #128
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Sanders, Warren, and latterly Ocasio-Cortez as the Democrats' golden child are showing that the appetite for more conventionally left-leaning or socialist policies is there - albeit on the 'coastal' states - and in the case of Ocasio-Cortez being quite brazen about this, scaring conservative mouthpieces enough to make it a policy to start running hatchet jobs on her. The whole 'repeal and replace' debacle perhaps opened voters' eyes enough that simple, social safety nets work quite well if given the chance.

    Nationally though, the focus becomes not on the progressive coastal areas, but the more staunchly conservative states and counties, where I suspect a bullish, socialist leaning candidate simply wouldn't fly - and thus lose the Presidency. The race for the Oval Office is a more tactical competition than simply pouring all ones ideological beliefs into one super-candidate.


  • #129
    jem
    Registered Users Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭jem


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    Bernie Sanders has highest approval rating of any politician in the US currently.

    Who I would love to see running but she is too young yet to qualify is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The fireworks between her and Trump would be unreal.

    Un electable as seen to be too left wing.


  • #130
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,207 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    jem wrote: »
    Un electable as seen to be too left wing.

    Given the current occupant of the White House, I don't think the term "unelectable" should be thrown around too loosely.


  • #131
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,199 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    Given the current occupant of the White House, I don't think the term "unelectable" should be thrown around too loosely.

    Agreed, but I think the Dems' best chance of beating Trump is someone who simply doesn't rock the boat. Someone who won't rile people up. Someone who is actually presidential. A good public speaker, no huge history attached to them and nothing substantial for Trump to latch onto. I think the likes of Harris or Cory Booker could easily beat Trump.

    AOC is definitely one to watch for the future, but against Trump it'll be a sh*tshow in terms of throwing barbs at each other and I think she represents what a lot of even moderate republicans hate, especially with Conservative news outlets throwing so much focus at her.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,341 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    eagle eye wrote: »
    It's not irrevelant. A woman got to go for President and lost, it'll be years before the Dems will let another one go for it.

    Harris is person the Dem party favour in 2020 so we will see I guess. Personally I would think Biden or Bernie are better option.
    jem wrote: »
    Un electable as seen to be too left wing.

    Majority of Americans actually lean left not right these days or more to the point agree with the policies of AOC. Trump ran his 2016 campaign on a mainly faux left wing ticket.
    82 percent of all Americans think wealthy people have too much power and influence in Washington.
    72 percent of Americans say it is “extremely” or “very” important, and 23 percent say it is “somewhat important,” to reduce poverty.

    96 percent of Americans—including 96 percent of Republicans—believe money in politics is to blame for the dysfunction of the U.S. political system.
    80 percent of Americans think some corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes.
    78 percent think some wealthy people don’t pay their fair share of taxes.
    76 percent believe the wealthiest Americans should pay higher taxes.

    59 percent favor raising the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour.
    48 percent support raising the national minimum wage to $15 an hour. (A survey of registered voters found that 54 percent favored a $15 minimum wage.)

    61 percent of Americans—including 42 percent of Republicans—approve of labor unions.
    74 percent of registered voters—including 71 percent of Republicans—support requiring employers to offer paid parental and medical leave.

    60 percent of Americans believe “it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage.”
    58 percent of the public favors replacing Obamacare with “a federally funded healthcare program providing insurance for all Americans.”
    63 percent of registered voters—including 47 percent of Republicans—of Americans favor making four-year public colleges and universities tuition-free.

    76 percent of voters are “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about climate change.
    72 percent of voters think it is a “bad idea” to cut funding for scientific research on the environment and climate change.

    84 percent of all Americans support requiring background checks for all gun buyers.

    68 percent of Americans—including 48 percent of Republicans—believe the country’s openness to people from around the world “is essential to who we are as a nation.”
    65 percent of Americans—including 42 percent of Republicans—say immigrants strengthen the country “because of their hard work and talents.”
    76 percent of registered voters—including 69 percent of Republicans—support allowing undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children (Dreamers) to stay in the country. 58 percent think Dreamers should be allowed to stay and become citizens if they meet certain requirements. Another 18 percent think they should be allowed to stay and become legal residents, but not citizens. Only 15 percent think they should be removed or deported from the country.

    58 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

    68 percent of Americans—including 54 percent of Republicans—support the requirement for private health insurance plans to cover the full cost of birth control.
    62 percent of Americans—including 70 percent of independents and 40 percent of Republicans—support same-sex marriage.


  • #133
    spacecoyote
    Registered Users Posts: 8,430 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


    Good article on 538 today which gives a broad summary of potential runners, as things stand today:

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-potential-2020-candidates-are-doing-and-saying-vol-1/

    If this is anything to go by, the Dem field is going to be very broad for a while


  • #134
    Rjd2
    Registered Users Posts: 11,992 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    Harris is person the Dem party favour in 2020 so we will see I guess. Personally I would think Biden or Bernie are better option.



    Majority of Americans actually lean left not right these days or more to the point agree with the policies of AOC. Trump ran his 2016 campaign on a mainly faux left wing ticket.

    One of the things that worries the GOP about AOC is that her financial opinions are actually appealing to Republicans. Tucker Carlson who is a powerful voice constantly mocks the old school GOP obsession with markets and does point out the flaws with capitalism. Heck he backed her for calling out corporate welfare which is sadly one of the least reported scandals in America. Heck its only Sanders and lately AOC who are calling it out.

    Coulter who I think used to be pretty generic Republican (ignoring immigration) actually praised the idea of wealth tax which AOC proposed.

    The likes of Bill Kristol and his wretched ilk know Trump will be gone soon enough, but by accident he is somehow managed to start a conversation about the old school Republicans devotion to the market etc.


    Biden for one term with Harris as his VP running in 2024 might be something that would appeal to the Dems considering Joe's age. They won't have a ticket of two white men so those suggesting Biden/Beto, that is not happening ever.


  • #135
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,138 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    spacecoyote wrote: »
    Good article on 538 today which gives a broad summary of potential runners, as things stand today:

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-potential-2020-candidates-are-doing-and-saying-vol-1/

    If this is anything to go by, the Dem field is going to be very broad for a while

    Not sure thats a good thing. A protracted and dirty nomination process isn’t what you want. It would be better if they could unite early behind one person. But then again they did that for Hillary and she still lost.


  • #136
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    The only thing I would say is that Beto has a lot of traction nationally at the moment, he's almost universally liked by young people and he very nearly won in Texas (which was surprising IMO). I could see Biden/O'Rourke 2020; O'Rourke/Harris 2024.

    Is it that surprising? Texas is increasingly a Hispanic state (more than half of all births in 2007) and the Hispanic population overwhelmingly vote Democrat. As the population becomes increasingly Hispanic, Texas is going to become an irrevocable Democrat stronghold in the next few years, like California before it. There is a political calculation in the Democrats policy on immigration.


  • #137
    For Forks Sake
    Registered Users Posts: 11,464 ✭✭✭✭For Forks Sake


    MadYaker wrote: »
    Not sure thats a good thing. A protracted and dirty nomination process isn’t what you want. It would be better if they could unite early behind one person. But then again they did that for Hillary and she still lost.

    I think the absence of a front-runner is probably no bad thing for the Dems at the moment, any obvious figurehead would be subjected to two years of lies and slurs from Trump/FOX (see Warren/"Pocahontas")


  • #138
    Rjd2
    Registered Users Posts: 11,992 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    Sand wrote: »
    Is it that surprising? Texas is increasingly a Hispanic state (more than half of all births in 2007) and the Hispanic population overwhelmingly vote Democrat. As the population becomes increasingly Hispanic, Texas is going to become an irrevocable Democrat stronghold in the next few years, like California before it. There is a political calculation in the Democrats policy on immigration.

    The Latino vote is not a total lost cause yet for Republicans which is crazy when you look at some of the stuff Trump says. They still came out somewhat for the Republicans in the mid terms and Scott got a high percentage in Florida.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-latino-voters-havent-completely-abandoned-the-gop/

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/rick-scott-chased-the-hispanic-vote-and-got-it

    Its probably the only demo outside rural whites that the Republicans don't need to totally panic over just yet.


  • #139
    Rjd2
    Registered Users Posts: 11,992 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    Gabbard has announced she is running. I don't see a path for her, she is liked by some of the progressives but even some of them consider her a wolf in sheep's clothing and the centre of the party would fight tooth and nail to stop her getting anywhere near it.

    Still though will be interesting to see how her run pans out.


  • #140
    hill16bhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭hill16bhoy


    Sand wrote: »
    Is it that surprising? Texas is increasingly a Hispanic state (more than half of all births in 2007) and the Hispanic population overwhelmingly vote Democrat. As the population becomes increasingly Hispanic, Texas is going to become an irrevocable Democrat stronghold in the next few years, like California before it. There is a political calculation in the Democrats policy on immigration.

    Migration into the state actually won Cruz the senate election.

    O'Rourke won by 3 points among voters born in Texas.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/09/texans-preferred-orourke-cruz-least-texans-born-texas-did/?utm_term=.854cf27090a8


  • #141
    nice_guy80
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,723 ✭✭✭nice_guy80


    Once a migrant gets into the USA they don't want more migrants coming in
    Its the American dream


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Rjd2 wrote: »
    The Latino vote is not a total lost cause yet for Republicans which is crazy when you look at some of the stuff Trump says. They still came out somewhat for the Republicans in the mid terms and Scott got a high percentage in Florida.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-latino-voters-havent-completely-abandoned-the-gop/

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/rick-scott-chased-the-hispanic-vote-and-got-it

    Its probably the only demo outside rural whites that the Republicans don't need to totally panic over just yet.

    Republicans have been trying to woo the Hispanic vote for a generation, but have largely failed.

    George W. Bush was governor of Texas, he believed in the importance of winning over the Hispanic vote. His sister in law hails from Mexico. He ran campaign ads in Spanish. He toned down anti-immigration discourse and tried to instead introduce reform (which ultimately failed). He did everything a Republican could do to appeal to conservative Hispanic voters.

    Donald Trump on the other hand ran a campaign which can be described as grossly offensive to Latin Americans. No need to go into the details, but it was not pretty.

    George W. Bush secured 35% and 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2000 and 2004. Tump secured 29%. The difference between Trumps insults and GWB's charm offensive was just an 11% swing. 2 out of every 3 Hispanic voters vote Democrat. There's no evidence the Republicans will ever secure a majority of the Hispanic vote on a national level. California is the future of Texas.


  • #143
    troyzer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,199 ✭✭✭troyzer


    Florida always has a republican Latino vote because of the Cuban exiles. They're the only Hispanic group that lean right.


  • #144
    marieholmfan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


    Rjd2 wrote: »
    Gabbard has announced she is running. I don't see a path for her, she is liked by some of the progressives but even some of them consider her a wolf in sheep's clothing and the centre of the party would fight tooth and nail to stop her getting anywhere near it.

    Still though will be interesting to see how her run pans out.

    In what way is she a wolf in sheep's clothing (presumably a centrist in progressive clothing)?


  • #145
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,836 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    I see Sherrod Brown's made a name for himself in recent weeks during this shutdown. He was a critic of the Iraq War and of the US's alliance to Daesh with a few more zeroes on their balance sheet the Saudis, and his labour activism should endear him to the Dems' left. On the other hand, his opposition to NAFTA will probably earn him few friends amongst the party's establishment.


  • #146
    spacecoyote
    Registered Users Posts: 8,430 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


    Julian Castro, the mayor of San Antonio has announced he will run.

    He's young (44), Latino, previously ran HUD for Obama, and was being considered for the VP ticket by Hillary.

    Could be problematic with Beto also potentially running.


  • #147
    Rjd2
    Registered Users Posts: 11,992 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    marieholmfan wrote: »
    In what way is she a wolf in sheep's clothing (presumably a centrist in progressive clothing)?

    Where to begin?:o

    https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1084351038180806656

    That's some highlights from her on Joe Rogan last year.

    She has met Assad and is a supporter of ending these oversea wars. She believes like plenty do on both sides that while Assad is an animal, their is no alternative. However as the media has got more pro war and anti Assad/Putin due to Trump, its not a popular stance. For some it means she is in their pockets, its not just ****wits on the right who love war, its also somewhat spread to the left due to how some have got into bed with the wretched neocons such as Bill Kristol and Max Boot.

    She was not in favor of the proposed pull out of Syria either, she said obviously get out and made sure to call out the hawks who want to stay their forever, but said it needs to be handled correctly. A solid stance, and not exactly that of someone in the pocket of Assad:pac:

    Going to be truly lit when a centerist Democrat on the debate stage hammers her for not wanting to bring that regime change so beloved by the hawks on the right. :eek:

    So then homosexuality....

    https://www.rollcall.com/news/campaigns/tulsi-gabbard-apologizes-for-past-anti-gay-activism-as-she-prepares-for-2020-race

    She seems to have changed her views over the last decade on it, some may say its careerism, but plenty of peoples views on homosexuality have evolved over the years especially regarding gay marriage.

    However hindu nationalism and her ties to it are not the fault of anyone bar her own.

    https://theintercept.com/2019/01/05/tulsi-gabbard-2020-hindu-nationalist-modi/

    The intercept is a solid site which is not about banal RESIST ~! and MAGA takes and that is an unpleasant read.

    Its a reason why the likes of Bannon and Spencer like her. Heck that is one thing that far right white people and hindu nationalists bond over is hatred of Muslims.

    I'l see how she proceeds with that in the next few months.


    She hasn't a hope though.


  • #148
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,195 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    seamus wrote: »
    Haven't been paying a lot of attention to this, but on paper I'd say Harris is the one best placed to take it. She's centrist enough to mop up all of the disenfranchised voters, has a clean enough background and her experience as an AG/Prosecutor means she could run rings around Trump's nonsense.

    But if the Dems continue down the path of trying to appease republican voters by being centre-right rather than centre or centre-left, then she'll be rejected in favour of someone who's less open about gay rights and gun control.

    As others have mentioned, it's not the Republican voters that they need to worry about, it's the swing voters.

    As for Harris being 'centrist', I don't see it. She's been in my news feed for fifteen years, given I lived in San Francisco until two months ago. Sure, she's not as far left as AOC, but that's not exactly saying much.

    In either case, whether she's centrist or not, she's from San Francisco. That's enough to label her. To give you an example, on the freeway (I-35) about half-way between here and Austin, there's a new billboard. It basically says "Look at California. Vote Republican" (We're in a fairly moderate part of the State, maybe leaning marginally left). Put simply, California is the best attack argument that Republicans have.

    There's a related one on 121, just South of the State Line.
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Dallas/comments/9rg0le/cant_believe_this_billboard_on_121_i_saw_today/


    I would caution against disregarding such sentiment, which I have seen in a number of States. Texas is the one in which it's most visible, as it's the one seeing the biggest benefit of the California Exodus, but it's no way absent in Colorado, Idaho, Nevada or Arizona either.
    Florida always has a republican Latino vote because of the Cuban exiles. They're the only Hispanic group that lean right.

    Depends on what criterion you're using. I've mentioned it before, but to say that everyone who votes "D" or "R" follows the same playbook is a gross oversimplication. Look at gay rights. It was blacks and hispanics who disproportionately vote in favour of prohibiting it in California. Black voters voted for Obama, 94%. They voted against gay marriage 70%. Hispanics voted 74% Obama, against gay marriage 53%. They're a reasonably religious lot, Hispanics. Trust me, I'm married to one.

    IMO, focusing on social issues is a lost cause. Republicans are making a big mistake by hoisting their colors to Roe v Wade, which is pretty settled. Similarly, the gay marriage thing is basically a done deal. The room for improvement there is not worth the trouble which will be caused by bringing the subject front and center into the discussion. Gun control can be brought up, certainly, but again, you have Kamela Harris gun control, and you have Connor Lamb gun control, the two are nowhere close. Both are Democrats in Congress, one has won in a swing state, the other won basically by having a "D" after her name. Focus on the economy. Focus on foreign relations. The National Debt. Defense/Security. Things the Federal Government is supposed to actually achieve. The way the Republicans have been running up the bills, it should be an easy gimme. Talk about the cost of healthcare, the cost of education. Not necessarily single payer or state funded, but at least make it cheaper. Things which are not matters of subjective social opinion, but which can be analysed and argued over. That is what will win swing voters.

    Would Harris have a chance? Sure. But I would have said that about anyone running against Trump. I see no reason for the Democrats to take any risks at all. They're better off with a moderate. The D base are already motivated enough: Trump is in the White House.

    I saw an article a day or two ago which indicates that in the first election after they are turfed out of the White House, the opposition party (Rep or Dem) tends to pick a candidate further to the wing, and every succeeding election, they move closer to the middle until they get a win. We'll see if they buck the trend.


  • #149
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    spacecoyote wrote: »
    Julian Castro, the mayor of San Antonio has announced he will run.

    He's young (44), Latino, previously ran HUD for Obama, and was being considered for the VP ticket by Hillary.

    Could be problematic with Beto also potentially running.
    I'll give you some insight into Americans for free here: nobody named Castro will be president of the United States in the next 50 years.

    Is there logic to that? Nope. Is it 100% accurate? Yes.


  • #150
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,341 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    If you talk healthcare, education costs on a Dem ticket and propose solutions you will be labelled far left not moderate by Republicans and right wing media.

    Biden is only moderate that would stand a chance of winning simply because he lived in rust belt so has a chance of winning Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Trump will win all 3 or 2 out of 3 of those if the Dems run any other moderate not named Biden because he will once again run a faux left wing campaign there.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I'll give you some insight into Americans for free here: nobody named Castro will be president of the United States in the next 50 years.

    Is there logic to that? Nope. Is it 100% accurate? Yes.

    Well, they did elect a guy with Hussein in his name. That being said, I agree. The ads attacking "Presidential Candidate Castro" practically write themselves.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement